US Presidential Election 2016

[lost]

19 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

So trump's comments are inflammatory. he's interested in the foreign threat, and if some foreigners are threatening some Americans, that's a cause to support.

 

He was speaking after a specific event about a specific event! back towards what I said regarding taking certain bias's into subjects. How relevant was it that the guy who carried out the shooting was a muslim versus how relevant is it that the guy who shot Joe Cox was a member of Britain first?

Do you think the media was biased against Britain first and every speech about it should of promised to say protect Mp's on the right against attack, condemned say the burning of Thatcher effigies and not mention the Britain First association? Personally I'd say that situation is as ludicrous as the one your suggesting.

Quote

do you think that getting rid of Muslims will prevent attacks on gay people?

Of course not, the muslims I associate with accept gay people, I wouldn't associate with them otherwise. I have issues with the specific brand of islam preached by groups like isis.

Edited November 13, 2016 by lost

[Lad]

14 minutes ago, lost said:

He was speaking after a specific event about a specific event! back towards what I said regarding taking certain bias's into subjects. How relevant was it that the guy who carried out the shooting was a muslim versus how relevant is it that the guy who shot Joe Cox was a member of Britain first?

Do you think the media was biased against Britain first and every speech about it should of promised to say protect Mp's on the right against attack, condemned say the burning of Thatcher effigies and not mention the Britain First association? Personally I'd say that situation is as ludicrous as the one your suggesting.

Of course not, the muslims I associate with accept gay people, I wouldn't associate with them otherwise. I have issues with the specific brand of islam preached by groups like isis.

I thought it was mainstream muslim opinion to condemn gays.

[feral chile]

20 minutes ago, lost said:

He was speaking after a specific event about a specific event! back towards what I said regarding taking certain bias's into subjects. How relevant was it that the guy who carried out the shooting was a muslim versus how relevant is it that the guy who shot Joe Cox was a member of Britain first?

Do you think the media was biased against Britain first and every speech about it should of promised to say protect Mp's on the right against attack, condemned say the burning of Thatcher effigies and not mention the Britain First association? Personally I'd say that situation is as ludicrous as the one your suggesting.

Of course not, the muslims I associate with accept gay people, I wouldn't associate with them otherwise. I have issues with the specific brand of islam preached by groups like isis.

how relevant is this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/orlando-gunman-was-a-regular-at-lgbt-nightclub-pulse-before-atta/

[zahidf]

Billy bragg puts it well

Been disappointed by the number of posts I've read here in the past few days that have sought to promote the narrative that liberals/leftists/feminists/the 'PC Brigade' etc are to blame for the election of Donald Trump. 

"X made me do it" is nothing more than the excuse of someone who knows they have done something wrong but is looking to shift the blame onto the victim. It's the classic argument used by men accused of assaulting women - "she was asking for it, going out dressed like that." 

Whatever their intentions, it's simply not possible for anyone to have voted for Donald Trump without knowing what he said about minorities and women. 

If you voted for Trump for no other reason than you genuinely despise the liberal elite, then at the very least you have discounted his racist language - "they're rapists, drug-dealers" - and misogynistic views - "I just grab 'em by the pussy". 

You many not be a racist or sexist yourself, but you're willing to empower someone who is in order to punish liberals.

So please don't try to justify what you've done by blaming it on someone else. You're the people who put great stock in masculine values, so stop trying to make excuses when you get called out on your decision. Man up and take responsibility for the Trump presidency. 

Because the more you try to deflect blame onto the very people you seek to punish, the more it starts to sound like you're ashamed of what you just did.

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, Lad said:

I thought it was mainstream muslim opinion to condemn gays.

Like all religions there is a variety of views. I think we can safely say it's not mainstream Muslim opinion to massacre lbgt folk.

[lost]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

.Man up and take responsibility for the Trump presidency. 

 

Will you stop using such offensive language and use gender neutral terms please.

 

If it talks like a misogynist etc..

Edited November 13, 2016 by lost

[Lad]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Like all religions there is a variety of views. I think we can safely say it's not mainstream Muslim opinion to massacre lbgt folk.

You've just been wailing about Mr efestivals putting up strawmen and then arguing against them.I've said that myself.Just like you've decided to do now about massacres . I said mainstream muslim teachings condemn gays not massacre them.Are you saying this is incorrect?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, Lad said:

You've just been wailing about Mr efestivals putting up strawmen and then arguing against them.I've said that myself.Just like you've decided to do now about massacres . I said mainstream muslim teachings condemn gays not massacre them.Are you saying this is incorrect?

I am not expert enough on Islamic theology to give a definitive answer on this. I am certainly aware that there is a significant anti-gay position within the Islamic faith & many "Islamic" countries are very intolerant of homosexuality. 

Personally, I have little time for most religions and am certainly more than happy to condemn intolerance in any of them including Islam. Just as I will condemn it amongst fundamentalist Christians.  Please accept my apologies if I have been unclear on this.

What do you think, Lad?

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by LJS

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, Lad said:

You've just been wailing about Mr efestivals putting up strawmen and then arguing against them.I've said that myself.Just like you've decided to do now about massacres . I said mainstream muslim teachings condemn gays not massacre them.Are you saying this is incorrect?

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

I am not expert enough on Islamic theology to give a definitive answer on this. I am certainly aware that there is a significant anti-gay position within the Islamic faith & many "Islamic" countries are very intolerant of homosexuality. 

Personally, I have little time for most religions and am certainly more than happy to condemn intolerance in any of them including Islam. Just as I will condemn it amongst fundamentalist Christians.  Please accept my apologies if I have been unclear on this.

I've also been trying to research this, and have come across different statements, so don't feel qualified to say which ones are true.

[zahidf]

Kellyanne Conway says on @FoxNewsSunday Harry Reid's comments are "beyond the pale," advises him to be careful in "legal sense"

Threathening legal action against political opponents is facism

 

Told you so

[zahidf]

More economic anxiety

 

 

 

[zahidf]

To the people who say they’re tired of being called racist for the way they voted,  (Leave and Trump supporters) I say I’m tired of you making common cause with racists. It’s no good going to a party thrown by racists and xenophobes and insisting you’re just there for the snacks. The question is why you were willing to overlook, excuse, apologize for or deny the racism of Trump’s and LEAVE campaign.

[pink_triangle]

4 hours ago, LJS said:

 

What I do believe is that Trump ran a campaign which, at the very least, played upon peoples fears and prejudices and there was a clear racist element to this. It seems clear that many people were attracted to this & it contributed to their decision to vote Trumpet. I am quite happy to label these people as racist.

 

I have no doubt that the majority of racist voted Trump, that doesn't necessarily mean the majority of Trump voters are racist.

 

4 hours ago, LJS said:

BUT, they could not have been unaware of the nastier side to Trumpet's campaign but decided it was OK to turn a blind eye to it. So whilst they may not be racist, they would appear not to think racism (&all the other isms) is not a big deal. I find it worrying that half of those who voted in the most powerful nation on earth are either racist or prepared to condone racism. 

OK I guess there may be some as well who, whilst deploring Trumpet's racism, thought where a politician stores her e mails is a more worrying issue. I don't know how I would describe these people - misguided perhaps

 

 

I think the argument about turning a blind eye would be valid if there were multiple viable candidates. However it was a 2 horse race and if you thought Clinton would be bad for the country there was no other choice. I think Neil is correct that in this country we underestimate the dislike for Clinton even before Trump came on to the scene. Some voters in a 2 horse rate with 2 bad horses were always going to have two accept characteristics they disliked.

As for those who deplored the rhetoric, I think there were factors in play beyond the emails.

4 hours ago, LJS said:

. On eFest however I feel comfortable giving my genuine view on them & i'm keeping my fingers crossed that by doing so I am not jeopardising Michelle Obama's chances in 2020.

4 hours ago, LJS said:

 All I am suggesting is that, amongst many other factors the people who voted Trumpet will be partly responsible for whatever horrors he goes on to perpetrate.

 

 

I agree we are all responsible for our vote, we try to make the best decision with the information we have and hope we make the right call. On the other side someone voting Clinton may feel partly responsible if she ended up taking America to war.

 

On paper Michelle Obama seems perfect. Unlike Clinton she seems to leave the White House with very little baggage and huge popularity. The question is whether she wants it (I suspect not) and whether America want another Obama after rejecting a Clinton and Bush.

The 2 other names I keep hearing are Warren and Booker. I suspect the former may be loved by the base, but not the electorate. While the latter I don't know much about other than he is young and black.

[pink_triangle]

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Kellyanne Conway says on @FoxNewsSunday Harry Reid's comments are "beyond the pale," advises him to be careful in "legal sense"

Threathening legal action against political opponents is facism

 

Told you so

I agree from the legal sense it's incredibly silly. However in terms of content some democrat senators have also been pretty critical 

[pink_triangle]

19 minutes ago, zahidf said:

More economic anxiety

 

 

 

If true, I hope these people make sure they do not keep their complaints confined to social media and get the law involved to go after these scumbags.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

To the people who say they’re tired of being called racist for the way they voted,  (Leave and Trump supporters) I say I’m tired of you making common cause with racists. It’s no good going to a party thrown by racists and xenophobes and insisting you’re just there for the snacks. The question is why you were willing to overlook, excuse, apologize for or deny the racism of Trump’s and LEAVE campaign.

Out of interest do you ever think it is moral to have a different political opinion to your own?

[zahidf]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Out of interest do you ever think it is moral to have a different political opinion to your own?

It isnt a difference of political opion

Our problem is not and has never been "over-reacting" to racial terror. Our problem is the hegemony of under-reaction, denial, minimization. At every turn, those who oppose white supremacy like Trump are met with denial, violence, "race card" accusations or hegemonic "progress" narratives.

White supremacy wants you to "look on the bright side", to "unify behind" an unapologetic racist, to "move on" with your life like normal. If you're not raising hell right now, if you're going about life "as normal", you're nothing more than a tool of white supremacy. If the election of a man endorsed by a white supremacist terror group isn't enough to wake you the fuck up, nothing will.

 

[feral chile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37969112

For the first time since winning the US presidency, Donald Trump has put a number on how many people he plans to deport from US soil and it's a big one - two to three million.

Although he says this group is comprised of violent criminals, drug-dealers and gang members, to hit such a high mark would involve either casting a very wide net that covers even the smallest infractions or also deporting legal alien residents of the US with criminal convictions.

To pull this off, an expanded "deportation force" would almost certainly be necessary, but Mr Trump's advisers have spent the past few days downplaying the prospect of such an organisation.

Meanwhile, Mr Trump also has curtailed the scope of his "big, beautiful" border wall, acknowledging that it could be a fence in some areas. All of this is evidence that Mr Trump is grappling with exactly how to make his controversial immigration promises a reality.

Proposing a multi-billion-dollar wall and mass deportations is easy. Delivering, in the face of fiscal realities and opposition within one's own party, is a different matter entirely.

'The people that are criminal'

There are around 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, many of them from Mexico.

Mr Trump pledged during the election campaign to overturn amnesties introduced by President Obama, and strictly enforce immigration laws, deporting those without correct documents.

In his first major interview to a US broadcaster since the election, Mr Trump told CBS: "What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate."

Asked about his plans for the Mexican border, he said "a wall is more appropriate" in some parts but "there could be some fencing",

Other undocumented migrants would be assessed once the border was secured, Mr Trump added.

However, another top Republican, House Speaker Paul Ryan, said on Sunday that border security was a greater priority than mass deportation.

"We are not planning on erecting a deportation force,'' he told CNN's State of the Union programme. "I think we should put people's minds at ease."

The US-Mexico border is about 1,900 miles (3,100 km) long and traverses all sorts of terrain from empty, dusty desert to the lush and rugged surroundings of the Rio Grande.

It is one of the busiest borders in the world, with at least one million people using it each day, as well as 400,000 cars and 15,000 lorries, according to Mexico's El Universal newspaper.

Some 650 miles are covered already by a non-continuous series of fences, concrete slabs and other structures.

Mr Trump has previously said his wall would cover 1,000 miles and natural obstacles would take care of the rest.

Forcing Mexico to pay for a border wall became a rallying cry among Trump supporters during the campaign.

Their candidate caused outrage by suggesting Mexicans were exporting "their rapists" to the US, along with drugs and other crime.

In another development, Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned Mr Trump that "going it alone" was not an option for Europe or the US.

He said the West faced its greatest security challenge in a generation.

[feral chile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37953528

US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is open to leaving intact key parts of President Barack Obama's healthcare bill.

Mr Trump, who has pledged to repeal the 2010 law, said he will keep the ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

He told the Wall Street Journal that he also favoured allowing young adults to be insured on their parents' policies.

"I like those very much," Mr Trump said of the two pillars of the bill.

It was his meeting with Mr Obama on Thursday that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out replacement of the Affordable Care Act, he told the newspaper

Asked whether he would implement a campaign promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his defeated Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server while secretary of state, Mr Trump said: "It's not something I've given a lot of thought, because I want to solve healthcare, jobs, border control, tax reform."

Meanwhile, protesters angered by Mr Trump's election gathered in several US cities for a third night on Friday. Thousands took to the streets of Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, voicing anger at the president-elect's comments about immigrants, Muslims and women.

Police in Portland are investigating the shooting and wounding of a protester on a bridge where anti-Trump demonstrators were marching. Officers had earlier used stun grenades to disperse a crowd of hundreds of people in the city centre.

In a separate interview with CBS, Mr Trump said the parts of Mr Obama's healthcare bill he was "going to try to keep" were "the strongest assets".

He said that while the bill would be repealed and replaced, the changes would provide Americans with "great healthcare for much less money".

He made the statement during an interview with the 60 Minutes programme, which is due to air on Sunday.

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter

"Repeal and replace" - with emphasis on the former over the latter - has been the Republican mantra when it comes to Barack Obama's healthcare reform for the past six years. Candidate Donald Trump echoed this when he labelled the programme a "disaster" and promised something much better if he were elected president.

Just days after the US public gave Mr Trump the keys to the Oval Office, however, he said there were parts of Mr Obama's signature legislative achievement worth keeping.

The challenge for the president-elect is that the Obamacare features he praises - such as its mandate that insurers cover pre-existing medical conditions - are made possible by portions of the law he has condemned, like requiring all Americans to obtain insurance.

Keeping the law's carrots while abandoning its sticks could prove difficult.

Complicating the matter is that a "revise and reform" effort may not fly with Mr Trump's ardent supporters and the cadre of arch-conservative politicians in Congress, who want to tear up the law "root and branch".

Mr Trump often broke with Republican orthodoxy while campaigning and didn't pay a political price. He may learn that as president he won't get far without his party establishment's help.

During the election campaign, Mr Trump said the government-run health insurance marketplace was "a total disaster" and "a catastrophe".

"Obamacare is just blowing up," he said only last month, while promising his own plan would deliver "great healthcare at a fraction of the cost".

While running for president, Mr Trump did not offer much detail on what he envisaged would be Obamacare's replacement.

The Republican's plan included tax-deductible health savings accounts and allowing insurers to sell coverage across state lines.

His apparent change of heart on Friday comes amid a surge in applications to join the plan from Americans possibly fearful it is about to be overturned.

More than 100,000 applicants snapped up Obamacare health insurance on the day after Tuesday's election, this year's biggest sign-up, the Obama administration announced.

About 22 million Americans would be without insurance if the law was repealed.

Congressional Republicans have voted more than 50 times to undo the law.

Though the Republicans have maintained control of the Senate, they cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety because under Senate rules, the Democratic minority remain in a position to block the move.

The Republicans could, however, starve parts of the bill of funding through a budgetary process called reconciliation.

The law has not been without its difficulties.

Last month, the Obama administration said the average cost of medical coverage under the bill was expected to rise by 25% next year for those Americans who do not qualify for subsidies.

And about one in five consumers would only be able to pick plans from a single insurer, it added.

Former President Bill Clinton last month called the unsubsidised portion of the law "the craziest thing in the world".

In the US - unlike in many other Western countries - private companies, rather than the government, provide health insurance for most citizens.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has suspended its efforts to win congressional approval for a Pacific free-trade deal before Mr Trump succeeds him in January.

The deal covers mostly agricultural products and involves 12 countries around the Pacific, but not China.

Officials said that after eight years of negotiations the fate of the deal, known as the Trans Pacific Partnership, was in the hands of the next administration.

Mr Trump has criticised the accord, describing it as a disaster which would send more jobs overseas.

BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam says a collapse of the agreement would be likely to increase Chinese dominance of the region and damage America's global reputation

[zahidf]

Steve Bannon, whose website Breitbart is a hub for white nationalism & homophobia is White House chief strategist. We are in big trouble.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, feral chile said:

For the first time since winning the US presidency, Donald Trump has put a number on how many people he plans to deport from US soil and it's a big one - two to three million.

so the same as Obama, then, who had deported 2.5M people by 2014, so is probably well over 3M by now.

You can argue about the rights and wrongs of deportation, but these people are illegal immigrants and when a country doesn't act against what it defines as crime it's time for that country to give up. It should be pointed out here that the UK also deports illegal immigrants,

Also, that Trump has previously said that many illegal immigrants won't face deportation, with the number of 11 million mentioned (I'm not entirely sure what the 11M is representing, aside from long term settled with no criminal record) - so if we're working from Trump's word (some people insist in taking everything he says 100% literally) it's not as heinous is someone is sure to suggest.

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, LJS said:

I seem to be getting tarred with Neil's "all trumpets are racist" brush and possibly "all brexiteers are racist" too.

that brush is conceived, designed, owned and manufactured by zahidf, not me.

You know, the guy you've been sticking up for.

FFS, how fucking thick are you?

 

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, feral chile said:

Do you think Trump's remarks were racist?

Some were, some weren't.

And when he was racist, he made a point of making clear that he wasn't referring to anyone within the USA's borders.

I'm not defending anything of what he said, I'm simply pointing out that if we're taking Trump literally as someone likes to do, the literal isn't what that someone claims.

 

19 hours ago, feral chile said:

If so, do you think he was pandering to racist elements?

Absolutely.

He was also pandering to non-racist elements too.

 

19 hours ago, feral chile said:

Do you think voting for someone who makes racist comments is racist by default?

Nope. People choose to hear the things they like and ignore other parts, particularly when there's no 'clean' candidate to vote for instead.

Do you think voting for someone who advocates bombings makes that voter a war-monger by default?

 

19 hours ago, feral chile said:

Do you think that when fears are expressed by focusing on a particular group, that this is bigoted?

Hmmmm ... so when Trump talked about cleaning corruption out of Washington, he's being bigoted?

I say that to point out it's not the black and white your 2,000-miles-away-and-followed-nothing blinkers tell you it must be.

 

19 hours ago, feral chile said:

Do you think failing to challenge discrimination is a form of discrimination?

Yep.

Do you think that challenging a democratic result just because it's not the result you'd like is a form of bigotry?

Attack Trump for what he says and does.

Don't attack Trump on self-invented fantasy.

[zahidf]

8 hours ago, zahidf said:

Steve Bannon, whose website Breitbart is a hub for white nationalism & homophobia is White House chief strategist. We are in big trouble.

 

[zahidf]

'Hey, Im only at this party run by the KKK because of the really nice sponge cake they promised me, not the racism.'